101–110 of 156 posts
Someone said that using a chat-only interface is like using CLI tools. It's even worse, I would add, because there is no autocomplete or man command to help you out. Most of us here probably get it, but my dad had a hard time getting a good answer from GPT when he first tried it, even with GPT-4 model.
isn't it ironic that there's no autocomplete on the tool that's literally autocomplete? haha where's the fine-tuned prompt helper model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It comes under the category of "generative art". It isn't intentional or self-expression, regardless of what the prompt engineers may kid you. Is it "art"? Sure. Is it traditional art? No.
It is intentional, it's just a generated approximation of intention.
1) I don't think chatting with anything, human or machine, is a learning experience, particularly since the machine veracity is poor, untrustworthy, and Hinton's resignation today tells you everything you need to know about the narrative inside big research orgs right now.
2) Recognition vs. recall. Given that it's the equivalent of an informal language CLI, which I prefer by the way; but there is no recognition (as in symbols) only recall.
Long story short, I think the emergent need is for written communication, with a tip of the hat to Daniele Procida:
https://ubuntu.com/blog/engineering-transformation-through-d...
Except that what's missing is a human-computer collaboration, i.e. sensemaking with another tip of the hat to Peter Pirolli:
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/event/180918-...
A lot of people are projecting for ChatGPT to come for the search market, but I wonder how that will play out for lowly cognitive queries. Quite a few people use search by awkwardly typing on mobile one or two words, probably misspelled and/or auto-completed as they type it. The query isn't sophisticated, lacks a lot of context and parameters, which the search engine then tries to guess. When you use ChatGPT in that…
So the one-track thinking of garbage-in-garbage-out is not the limitation any more.
What we're precisely now able to do is garbage-in-less-garbage out.
You can take a vague prompt in and ask GPT to hypothesize on what it means, why the user is asking that question and then generate a detailed prompt. Then use that that prompt and then perform the search.
Trying this out in the playground, I see a suprisingly capable search experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, sure. But you know what makes most of human history's output of art, music, literature et al great? Intent, attention to detail and self-expression . Broad strokes are broad strokes. I can procedurally generate levels all day long in a video game, but for me, they're never going to be as compelling or interesting as a lower-resolution and low quality textured game from the '90s or '00s where every single tree an…
> I can procedurally generate levels all day long in a video game, but for me, they're never going to be as compelling or interesting as a lower-resolution and low quality textured game from the '90s or '00s where every single tree and rock is placed with intent. The popularity of Minecraft and other procedural games would imply that there is still a large number of people who value exploring the unknown generated co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It comes under the category of "generative art". It isn't intentional or self-expression, regardless of what the prompt engineers may kid you. Is it "art"? Sure. Is it traditional art? No.
I totally agree with this. But as an art lover, I want some real way of being able to tell if a piece of art is this, or is traditional.
Unfortunately, short of more behind-the-scenes material and interviews, the only way to really get a feel for it is looking at their body of work as a whole. The great ones always have a specific style that they refine or evolve over time. It's unmistakably x.
I have to say, I've yet to see any AI artist hit a signature style, and I've yet to have an AI generated piece of art move me emotionally or conceptually.
Are they interesting? Sure. So's glitch art, but there's not much substance to any of it, and I remember none of it. Intent and self-expression is such a huge part of art.
Can you imagine what Hitchcock would say about AI anything? He wanted it 100% his way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, sure. But you know what makes most of human history's output of art, music, literature et al great? Intent, attention to detail and self-expression . Broad strokes are broad strokes. I can procedurally generate levels all day long in a video game, but for me, they're never going to be as compelling or interesting as a lower-resolution and low quality textured game from the '90s or '00s where every single tree an…
Really? For a writer, if you write out a plot, you can get the AI to actually simulate the character's responses and dialogue (even voiced by AI!). There, you've LITERALLY brought a character to life, each character is driven by a different persona simulated by a different AI, the quality of stories that will create, will annihilate what came before. You want to write an adventure, but want to keep it unpredictable.…
You know what else comes from the output of many people? What AIs produce.
> They love drawing, but not art. They love socializing with artists, but not art. They love receiving attention and income from their art, but not art.
Love of drawing, socializing with artists, and attention and income when people connect and buy their art are all forms of deeper engagement/investment with art.
The generous reading I can make of the mistake that sets these up as the other side of an inimical dichotomy where engaging these things is not loving art is if you're limited to the perspective of someone whose experience with art is that of a consumer and equates that perspective with loving art.
Being concerned about alienation from drawing, from connection with a community of other artists making efforts, and yes from attention and income that makes their focus socially/economically viable seems pretty reasonable.
It's also reasonable to be interested in what new tools can do and I rather imagine there will be people who enjoy that as well, some of whom may be able to produce visions that were previously inaccessible to them. That's interesting and exciting, but it doesn't mean there's no downsides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can procedurally generate levels all day long in a video game, but for me, they're never going to be as compelling or interesting as a lower-resolution and low quality textured game from the '90s or '00s where every single tree and rock is placed with intent. The popularity of Minecraft and other procedural games would imply that there is still a large number of people who value exploring the unknown generated co…
Not to mention the middleground of handmade pieces and putting them together in a randomly generated way. That's how a ton of games work - from Noita, to Cataclysm DDA, to Dead Cells.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but: " Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Comments like this confirm that you are indeed reading every comment on the website, which should be out of the realm of humanely possible.